Even so, you’d think that the EEOC, an independent agency, would maintain its pro-LGBT position.

Well…

“It sounds wishy-washy…”

Jacquie Lee at Bloomberg Law writes here about a curious exchange at yesterday’s hearing between the nominees and Senators Murray (D-WA), Baldwin (D-WI, and Kaine (D-VA):

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) asked the nominees if they would support the EEOC’s current position that laws banning sex discrimination in employment include protections for LGBT people. Both said they personally oppose discrimination based on sexual identity and orientation.

Gade said he is committed to enforcing law as “the courts have written.” Dhillon said she thinks a legislative solution is the most appropriate way to address the issue.

“It sounds wishy-washy to me,” Murray said in reference to Dhillon’s answer. Murray added that she appreciated the first part of Dhillon’s response, which mentioned her personal stance against discrimination.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) also pressed Dhillon to clarify her stance on protections for LGBT people.

“It’s critical that the federal government ultimately speak with one voice on how this statute is appropriately interpreted,” Dhillon said.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) continued Baldwin’s line of questioning. “If someone proposed a vote to scale back the EEOC approach to this type of discrimination, would you support or oppose them?” he asked.

“The courts are wrestling with this statutory interpretation as well,” Dhillon said. “It’s easy to give a quick answer, but the issue is too serious. Ideally a legislative solution could resolve this.”

If you skip to about 28:06 in the audio track, you can listen to the full discussion.

To their credit, let’s underscore that both Gade and Dhillon affirmed that they are personally opposed to discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. And one could read the exchange quoted above as saying that, while codifying the EEOC’s current position would be ideal, the EEOC will continue to view and enforce LGBT rights as it has over the past several years.

Except, how do you explain Ms. Dhillon’s statement that, “It’s easy to give a quick answer, but the issue is too serious?” Ms. Dhillon also noted the split in authority at the appellate court level, the differing positions of the EEOC and DOJ, while wanting to speak with one voice?

Which voice?

It sounds kinda, I dunno, wishy-washy.

But, for now, business at the EEOC is the same as it ever was. And, if you live in a state or locality that has LGBT protections, then that’s the law of your land.

CONTRIBUTOR:

Eric B. Meyer

You know that scientist in the action movie who has all the right answers if only the government would just pay attention? If you want a nerdy employment-lawyer brain to help you solve HR-compliance issues proactively before the action sequence, as a Partner of a national law firm, FisherBroyles, LLP, I’m here to help. I'm not only an EEOC-approved trainer, I offer day-to-day employment counseling, workplace audits and investigations, and other prophylactic measures to keep your workplace working while you focus on running your business. And for those employers in the midst of conflict, I bring all of my know-how to bear as your zealous advocate. I’m a trial-tested, experienced litigator that has represented companies of all sizes in a veritable alphabet soup of employment law claims, such as the ADA, ADEA, CEPA, FMLA, FLSA, NJLAD, PHRA, Title VII, and USERRA. I also help clients litigate disputes involving restrictive covenants such as non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, as well as conflicts over use of trade secrets and other confidential information. For more about me, my practice, and my firm, click on my full bio.